Chennai Court March 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S.S.A.S. Baluchamy Chettiar Vs. A.J.P. Ibrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ411
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner herein is the landlord, whose petition for eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement for own occupation and commission of acts of waste, has failed before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The allegation of the petitioner with regard to acts of waste is that the respondent having agreed under the oral lease not to have an oven in the demised premises, caused damage to the premises by putting up a oven. As regard the other ground, the case of the petitioner is that he requires the shop let out to the respondent for having a reception room to enable him to run a lodge for which purpose he is constructing several rooms in accordance with a sanctioned plan. The Courts below having negatived both the claims, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 2. When the revision was being argued, the respondent, tenant filed an affidavit that the land-lord had put up a room on the first floor in between the Arya Bhavan Hotel and t...
A. Karunambigai Vs. V. Kanagasabapathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ420
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful wife before the Lower Appellate Court has preferred this second appeal.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as follows: The respondent herein filed the petition H.M.O.P. No. 35 of 1983 Under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu-Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage between him and his wife, the appellant herein. The case of the respondent is that the marriage between him and the appellant took place on 26.3.1980 as per Hindu sastricrites and the custom of the community and thereafter they lived together amicably for about seven months. The appellant went to Coimbatore in May, 1982 for confinement and later she gave birth to a male child. Arunkumar. About seven months after delivery, the respondent went to Coimbatore and requested the appellant to return to Karur along with him. She refused to come and live with the respondent. All efforts taken by the respondent to prevail upon her to return to Karu...
Yakub Rowther Vs. Poongavanammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1989
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ400
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The second appeal arises out of the present suit O.S. No. 280 of 1981, on the file of the District Munsif, Kallakurichi. The suit is one for declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiff in the present suit was a claimant in respect of an attachment over the suit property in O.S. No. 290 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif, Kallakurichi, which was a suit filed by one Sadayan Asari against the second defendant in the present suit in respect of a promissory note, executed by her husband Murugesa Asari. The plaintiff in the present suit put forth a claim to the suit property under the cover of the sale deed, dated 24-4-1967 executed by the second-defendant herein. The claim of the plaintiff was dismissed and the plaintiff was obliged to file O.S. No. 656 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif, Kallakurichi, for setting aside the summary order. That suit was decreed by the first Court There was an appeal A.S.No. 447 of 1973 on the file of the Subordina...
P.C. Thanikavelu Vs. the Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Mad222
S. Ramalingam, J.1. The question for consideration is whether at the stage of enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, a person whose name is not entered in the revenue records as a person interested in the land, is entitled to notice of the enquiry when the officer conducting the enquiry is informed of the interest possessed by such person in the land.2. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act contemplates publication of the notification in the Official Gazette by the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. Besides such publication in the Official Gazette, the section also contemplates publication of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. These provisions have been held to be mandatory.3. The purpose and object of making such publication and causing such notice to be given is to enable all persons interested in the land to put forth their objections, if an...
Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras and Another Vs. Naina ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad22; 1990(26)ECC299; 1990(46)ELT16(Mad)
ORDERPaomini Jesuduhai, 1. The short point involved in this writ appeal is whether, the show cause notice issued under R. 3(1) of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules 1974, framed under the foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, is or is not a notice of the commencement of adjudication proceedings under S. 51 of that Act.2. The respondent filed W.P. 7523 of 1987 on the averment that on 21-5-19, the Enforcement Officials seized from his residential premises a sum of Rs. 1,60,000, Indian Currency he longing to him, for alleged viola-lion of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, '1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and that S. 41 of the Act permits retention of the amount beyond a period of one year if proceedings either under S. 51 of the Act or prosecution under S. 56 of the Act had been commenced and in (case he) received any (no) show cause notice about any adjudication proceedings, that the appellants department could no longer retain the currency and that, therefore, a wr...
C. Pitchhai Alias Kathan Vs. Gokila Devi Ammal and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ526
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed by tenant against the order of eviction passed by the Revenue Court (Special Deputy Collector), Madurai.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision are briefly as follows: The first respondent herein filed as petition for eviction of the revision-petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein, in T.CT.P.No.7 of 1987 on the ground that they committed wilful default in payment of rent for the faslis 1384 to 1387 and 1389 to 1391 at the rate of 30 bags per year, each measuring 54 mm. The said application was resisted by the tenants and in their counter they would state that there was no proper yield during the relevant faslis on account of want of rain and that they have not committed default want only. The first respondent herein (Landlord) was examined and she reiterated the same allegations in her evidence. The revision-petitioner and other tenants did not turn up and they were set ex parte. The Revenue Court came to ...
K.M. Iyyakannu Vs. Thangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ478
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Rent Controller refusing to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the petition mentioned property and note the physical features.2. It is seen that the respondent herein filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner that the petition mentioned premises is required for accommodating his vehicle, namely, a tourist van bearing registration number TNP. 4066. The said application resisted by the revision petitioner contending that he is using the said premises for tailoring shop and no van can enter the premises as it is unless it is altered. He also contended that there is no sufficient space for parking the vehicle. The Court below dismissed the petition relying on a judgment of this Court reported in Mrs. Thangam v. T.K. Madhavan : (1986)1MLJ291 wherein it was held as follows:. the shed in the occupation of the respondent need not be actually used as a garage at t...
Chinnammal Vs. Nagarathinammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad249
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court. Madras, dismissing E. P. No.1758 of 1981 in O. S. No. 1664 of 1959 filed by the revision petitioner on two grounds, namely, that the petitioner being a purchaser is not entitled to maintain the execution petition and therefore the decree for the relief of permanent injunction cannot be executed and further the decree for injunction runs with the land and cannot be executed by the purchaser.2. As regards the first point, learned counsel for the respondent also conceded that in view of the provisions of Section 146, C.P.C. and the Explanation added to O. 21, R. 16, certainly the purchaser of the property which is the subject-matter of the decree, without assignment, can maintain the execution application As regards the second contention whether the purchaser can maintain the execution petition for disobedience of the decree by injunction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner only...
A.C. Thirugnanamurthy Vs. V. Jamuna Bai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad242
ORDER1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises against the fair and decretal order dated 25-1-1984 passed in I. A. No. 20281 of 1983 in I. A. No. 19796 of 1983 in 0. S. No.8191 of 1982 by the Eleventh Additional Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, under the following circumstances.2. The appellant Thirugnanamurthi is a third party claimant before the trial court. The 1st respondent Jamunabai filed the suit for recovery of certain amounts against the 2nd respondent F. V. Narayanan alias P. V. Narayana Nair. Jamuna Bai also filed Application No. 20810 of 1982 for attachment before judgment of the car TMZ 714 on the ground that it belonged to the defendant. On 14-12-5982, defendant gave an undertaking that he will not alienate the car. Later on the 1st respondent-plaintiff, on information that the 2nd respondent-defendant is going to alienate the car filed 1. A. No, 10445 of1983 on 21-6-1983 and a conditional order on 4-8-83 was passed directing the 2nd respondent-defendant to furnish ...
B. Jegnathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad69
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to appoint a Commission of Enquiry against the previous Government to find out irregularities,about of power,corruption, loss of revenue, under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.2. The petitioner,who is a practising Advocate, has raised the following contentions in the affidavit filed in support of this petition;--He is filing this writ petition as a public interest litigation,since he feels that it is the duty of all the persons to help the Court to the best of their ability in ascertaining the truth and for moulding the appropriate relief.The accountability of the executive to the people through the judiciary cannot be set at naught by any self-induced doubts regarding the jurisdiction of the Court or the propriety of the Court to entertain matters raising questions of annihilations of constitutional values by the executive.After the death of the Ex-Chief Minster T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »